[JoPP-Public] Future of Journal of Peer Production (JoPP): the end of the line?
panayotis antoniadis
panayotis at nethood.org
Sun Nov 11 23:54:37 CET 2018
Hi all,
Two quick ideas that came to my mind while watching a documentary on
"The residents", titled "Theory of obscurity", toward moving to more
"experimental" grounds and questioning the whole academic publishing
system at its roots.
First, I would reject the need for regular finalized issues, but would
like to see a publication that is "slow" and incremental. In that sense
why not treat the "Open" issue as truly open and keep adding articles to
it over time? This could keep the journal going on for very long, and
without stress :-)
Second, and more ambitiously, I think it would be interesting to produce
a whole "anonymous" issue, without naming the editors nor the authors
and without any references in the articles. Just "pure ideas". "Us" who
have more or less access to the "gated" world of knowledge, could we
summarize (a small part of) what is interesting to know without taking
ownership of the ideas, and without requiring from something to have
read 100 books to understand a single sentence?
I could write more about both ideas, but for now I just throw them to
you in case they could be transformed to something interesting :-)
Best,
Panos.
On 07.11.18 04:06, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
>
> Hi Kat, all
>
>
> Well, the theme is "OPEN" so yes any idea is worth exploring! So many
> points, so little time!!!
>
>
> Art stuff = Steve is a musician and I've been toying with the idea of
> sending out a new CFP for sound / art related to peer production /
> open access but did not get round to it because WORK. So, ah, Steve,
> what do you reckon? Too much to organise, or possible?
>
>
> Kountergemonik stuff = I like the idea of a celebration, good to be
> positive. I also would like to move forward concretely. This may be a
> case of slackness leading to greatness i.e. my job was to contact the
> OA journals that were suggested on this list to ask them to contribute
> a paper and a few thoughts re OA. I did not do this yet but that
> means we can now include a new dimension: what should be done? In my
> mind there are two questions really. The second one is going to sound
> grandiose to some but needs to be asked, I think.
>
> A-How can we reduce the commercialisation of research? I have some
> ideas, others here might also, other OA people might have some. So
> that's positive, may lead to concrete change and we can actually do
> something to further this.
>
> B-But - even if we somehow managed to release the stranglehold of
> Elsevier and their ilk around research, what would that change in
> terms of industrial capitalism's destruction of the planet?
>
>
> cheers
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Kat Braybrooke <kat.braybrooke at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:03
> *To:* andrew.murphie at gmail.com; Journal of Peer Production's general
> and public list
> *Cc:* Mathieu O'Neil
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Future of Journal of Peer Production
> (JoPP): the end of the line?
>
> hey all,
>
> maybe this is a crazy idea, so please feel free to discard - but! i
> did want to add that the tone of andrew's response really resonated
> for me in the sense that, in a way, while the hegemonies of
> traditional academic publishing (and its ever-oppressive competitive
> rating systems) continue to solidify, this also feels like a special
> moment to celebrate the successes of all of those /other/ ways that
> alternative/open access publishing efforts have created their own
> forms of counter-hegemony to subvert the messages of the mainstream -
> manifestations that would make the likes of antonio gramsci proud, i
> think.
>
> so, i wonder if there could be some way to co-create a special issue
> which is also a coming-together of several of our journals/publishing
> projects at once - with the theme of not only reflecting on the
> effects of the myriad embodiments of labour we have brought into the
> world (and the means of production associated with those / the
> exhaustion we all feel from it all) but also on celebration - of what
> we have accomplished separately, and together?
>
> this mega-gathering (or, perhaps, party) could include, and not be
> limited to, the journal of peer production, the fibreculture journal,
> projects like meatspace press and their freely-distributed pamphlets
> https://meatspacepress.org/about/ <https://meatspacepress.org/about/>
> , networked gatherings and multimedia outputs like that of
> furtherfield https://www.furtherfield.org/
> <https://www.furtherfield.org/> and the collaboration of any other
> like-minded crews who too might have an interest. it could manifest
> both digitally, across our various converged channels, and also in
> print, through a co-published pamphlet or other creative medium, which
> could also even include artistic submissions in the tradition of
> adbusters etc.
> About – Meatspace Press <https://meatspacepress.org/about/>
> meatspacepress.org
> Meatspace Press is a publishing project co-founded by Mark Graham and
> Joe Shaw.The name comes from the cyberpunk slang for the opposite of
> cyberspace: real life. In practice, we believe in no such binaries.
>
>
>
> again though, maybe it's too ambitious/crazy an idea. just putting it
> out there, in case - maybe it can lead to something else entirely!
> just seems like a nice moment to collaborate, and subvert, and perhaps
> even raise a bit of hell before taking that break ;)
>
> - kat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:56 AM Andrew Murphie
> <andrew.murphie at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.murphie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mathieu,
>
> yes it will be interesting to see where #13 takes us ...
>
> a
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 13:35, Mathieu O'Neil
> <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au <mailto:mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew, all
>
>
> Thanks for your message. Briefly (I don't want to pre-empt
> other responses):
>
>
> 1.Someone signaled on the jopp-ed list that they may have an
> idea for jopp#14. More on this asap.
>
>
> 2.Really appreciate your thoughts on OA journals / political
> economy of scientific-scholarly publishing. As you know we are
> planning to have a special section in jopp#13 for OA journals.
> Could be good opportunity to assess where we're at
> and articulate some ideas / interventions to move forward re
> Elsevier / OA labour...?
>
>
> cheers
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org
> <mailto:jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org>> on behalf
> of Andrew Murphie <andrew.murphie at gmail.com
> <mailto:andrew.murphie at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 5, 2018 10:51
> *To:* Journal of Peer Production's general and public list
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Future of Journal of Peer
> Production (JoPP): the end of the line?
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> We're facing the same kinds of questions at the Fibreculture
> Journal. We're keeping on keeping on the for moment but we'll
> see what happens next year. A while back we were almost
> thinking of an issue on this very issue .. current state of OA
> publishing, why it's become difficult, the life cycle of
> journals that are fully OA etc etc .. why the potential has
> not yet actualised in anything like the way it could ...
>
> Something on the future of Scholarly Comms (a term that
> perhaps becomes redundant when I think about it ... )
>
> Watched Paywall last night. All through my partner and I were
> talking about something that seemed not to quite come up ..
> which is the question of labour .... "the modes of peer
> production" I guess. Although I think JoPP has dealt with this
> some in #10. I know this has been a huge issue at FCJ. We've
> all burned out at some stage with the work (and complete lack
> of credit even in university workloads .. universities love
> journals but seem to think journal issues just pop out of the
> ground by themselves like mushrooms).
>
> It's also, I have to say, been quite hard to FCJ to make a
> transition into doing things differently, more in tune with
> what we see as contemporary events, largely because forces
> keep pulling us back to traditional forms of credit etc when
> it comes to the form and process of the work.
>
> I know other journals and so forth have faced similar issues.
>
> Among these and other questions (very prevalent throughout
> Paywall, and certainly in my mind as editor of FCJ since at
> least 2008 ... the first ERA ranking exercise ...and now with
> UNSW where I work's own "journal rankings" exercise) ... is
> the whole politics of infrastructure—reactionary we well
> know—that has developed around publishing now ... at exactly
> the same time that OA and much more beyond this in terms of
> "scholarly comms" has thrived, in what I'm calling a "third
> media revolution" (most of publishing has become even more
> stubbornly "second media revolution" that is, the reproduction
> and distribution of representations, e.g. the printing press
> but also the like of social media) ...
>
> So one idea (and I hesitate as I'm beyond time poor) might be
> a cross many OA venture (as in venture communism) celebration,
> exploration into the beyond, and also critical evaluation of
> the contemporary state of
> whatever-it-is-that-scholarly-comms-is-becoming. This could
> also be seen as an activist intervention into the state of
> things, e.g. the politics of scholarly infrastructure, but
> also, rankings and research organisations especially (think of
> e.g. Plan S here, although I've recently heard that the "fix
> is in" on this .. at least in the UK, with Elsevier no less
> part of the discussions now being undertaken) ...
> Interventions of commercial consultants, etc. Our entire
> university is now run via "rankings" etc. Tied of course to
> the future of the university or
> whatever-it-it-universities-are-(un)becoming .. then there
> would be questions about forms of comms and scholarly comms
> and processes through this; data, media and comms and (to my
> mind) the almost total lack of understanding of any of these
> except in the most outmoded and frankly limited way on the
> part of research organisation and infrastructure high and low
> , etc etc.
>
> None of this means that JoPP should continue, if it has served
> its purpose. Probably just thinking on my feet. And it could
> go on without it (which sensibly would leave those who have
> made JoPP work so well with some time of their hands to do
> other things. As someone who has spent far too much time on an
> OA journal, to the detriment of my other work, I can say it is
> sometimes a good idea to let things go).
>
> andrew
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 19:59, Mathieu O'Neil
> <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au <mailto:mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
>
> Steve and I have been working on JoPP #13 OPEN to be
> released in the first half of 2019. After that, it's
> anybody's guess.
>
>
> JoPP#14 should come out in the first half of 2020 but for
> that to happen someone(s) has to come up with a concept
> - and CFP! Maurizio proposed something around the
> commons/STS a while back but this has not translated into
> concrete action (yet).
>
>
> If no-one is willing / able to continue the JoPP journey
> it may be time to plan for officially entering hiatus mode
> after JoPP #13.
>
>
> Perhaps the Journal has served its purpose -
> raised awareness and knowledge of peer production, linked
> with makers/activists, fostered a community - and
> something else needs to take its place?
>
>
> Or, someone(s) want(s) to keep the project moving forward.
> If that is the case, please say so. CFP for JoPP #14
> should go out soon.
>
>
> Personally I've co-edited two of the last four issues (#10
> and upcoming #13) and have a lot on my plate in the coming
> year. I might have issues to explore in JoPP in the
> future, but not now.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Mathieu
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> <mailto:JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org>
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>
>
> --
> ***
>
> "A traveller, who has lost his way, should not ask, Where am
> I? What he really wants to know is, Where are the other
> places" - Alfred North Whitehead
>
> "The greatest effort is not concerned with results" - Atīśa
> (982-1054; Vajrayana Buddhism, Bengal)
>
> Andrew Murphie - Associate Professor
> School of the Arts and Media,
> University of New South Wales,
> Sydney, Australia, 2052
>
> Editor - The Fibreculture Journal http://fibreculturejournal.org/>
> web: http://www.andrewmurphie.org/
> <http://dynamicmedianetwork.org/>
>
> tlf:612 93855548 fax:612 93856812
> room 311H, Robert Webster Building
>
>
>
>
> --
> ***
>
> "A traveller, who has lost his way, should not ask, Where am I?
> What he really wants to know is, Where are the other places" -
> Alfred North Whitehead
>
> "The greatest effort is not concerned with results" - Atīśa
> (982-1054; Vajrayana Buddhism, Bengal)
>
> Andrew Murphie - Associate Professor
> School of the Arts and Media,
> University of New South Wales,
> Sydney, Australia, 2052
>
> Editor - The Fibreculture Journal http://fibreculturejournal.org/
> <http://fibreculturejournal.org/>>
> web: http://www.andrewmurphie.org/ <http://www.andrewmurphie.org/>
> <http://dynamicmedianetwork.org/>
>
> tlf:612 93855548 fax:612 93856812
> room 311H, Robert Webster Building
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> <mailto:JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org>
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
More information about the JoPP-Public
mailing list